Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

In November 1988 the Carrier issued a bulletin advertising a Water Service Repairman vacancy, headquartered at Tyler, Texas, in Seniority District 2. There were no bids received from any employee assigned to or holding seniority in Seniority District 2. The position was assigned to an employee who, while having previously served as a Water Service Repairman, was without any prior seniority rights in Seniority District 2.

The Claimant holds seniority in Seniority District 2, although with no previous service in Water Service. He had been in furlough status since May 19, 1986. In June 1989 a Claim was initiated on the Claimant's behalf. This Claim made reference to the filling of a Water Service Helper position in Tyler, alleging that the position should have been offered to the Claimant. During the onproperty claim handling procedure, r continued. It was not until referral to the Board that the Organization based its Claim and its argument on the Water Service Repairman position.

The Carrier properly took note of this change of position. The Board finds this of significance. At issue here is the Organization's original contention that the Carrier was required to recall a Seniority District 2 employee to a Helper position, with the Carrier denying correctly that such position had been filled. It is a quite separate question as to whether the Carrier is required to recall an employee from furlough for a Repairman position for which the employee has no demonstrated qualification. This dispute was not addressed on the property and thus is not ripe for Board review.

Two other procedural matters raised by the Carrier should also be mentioned. One is the contention that the Claim was untimely, being raised some seven months after the incident on which the claim (eventually) relied. The difficulty here is that the Carrier failed to raise this objection on the property.

Likewise, the Carrier contended, later in the claim handling procedure, that the Claimant had no standing, since, as of August 9, 1990, he had not returned to active status within four years and thus had forfeited seniority. This begs the issue, however, since the Claim was initiated in June 1989 while the Claimant's seniority standing remained intact.

It remains the fact, however, that the issue of filling a position of Repairman was not addressed on the property and thus is not suitable for resolution by the Board.

A W A R D